Jan Roland Eriksson said:
"The only thing I could see is that you "agreed" with his question."
Fine.
If the UI treats XHTML the same way as it treats HTML4 transitional, then
the move to XML, and the whole idea of modularizing XHTML will be a waste.
My question is this: Is there a logical reason why it is impossible for a UI
to look at a DTD or namespace or schema (I'll admit I'm really rusty on the
XML lingo... maybe because I don't have faith I'll ever need to use it) as
opposed to rendering all pages, from HTML 2.0, to modular XHTML 1.1, exactly
the same?
What about customized namespaces? Do those have to be hard-coded into a
modular markup renderer in the UI? Does that mean that we'd open the door to
more battles of differing proprietary markup-based "solutions" from
Microsoft and Netscape /again/? Do we really want more of that?
If the W3C wants to reformulate HTML as an application of XML, I'm
completely fine with that, but it had better be an application of XML, and
not what HTML has been for the past few years: proprietary, based upon
whichever UI is being used.
That's my argument for using "doctype sniffing." Now, in terms that a
simpleton like myself could understand, please explain your argument(s)
against.
Daniel Hiester